The man now dawg wrote:I guess that logos on clothes aren't expressly ads and dumb tattoos are.
I'm not talking about tattoos. I'm talking about the logos permitted at the US Olympic trials on singlets and shorts for apparel manufacturers. At the US Olympic trials, you can have a logo on your singlet and shorts for adidas, Brooks, New Balance, etc., who are direct competitors to Nike, an official sponsor of the IAAF and USOC.
The permitted logos by rival apparel manufacturers at the US trials makes Nike's sponsorship of the IAAF and USOC less valuable, according to the judge. So how does it make any sense to ban a Run Gum logo on a singlet and shorts when a Run Gum logo doesn't devalue any sponsorship UNLIKE the sponsorships that are permitted?
If the rationale for the rule is that logos on singlets devalue Nike's sponsorship of the IAAF and USOC, then logos by adidas, Brooks, New Balance, etc. should be banned instead of logos for Run Gum. The supposed rationale for the rule makes no sense.